From appearances Apple did not want it's name associated with Digitude while Nokia didn't have the same issue with MOSAID. Now that the connection is out in the open it's going to be impossible for Apple to make denials. What Digitude does from here on out is going to be associated with Apple.

Apple and Digitude conspired to do a two-step deal to make it look like Apple is at a distance. However, the connections between Apple's licensee and the Patant Troll were uncovered.

Your analogy is all wrong. Motorola is like a kid who gave up its property for all to use on fair and non discriminatory terms. Legally it has no right to take it's property back. The kid then got jealous of the popular new kid named Apple and wanted to discriminate against the pretty new kid by forcing it to pay a toll nobody else has to pay. So, since the kid chose to discriminate against Apple, Apple decided to keep using the property that it had a legal right to do. Just because the kid turned into a bully and didn't honor its commitments, doesn't mean Apple should have to suffer.

Instead, like when Apple had to deal with that bully Nokia, Apple is setting money aside that it is properly accounting for and that it intends to give to the kid when the kid decides to honor its original commitment to the community.

Didn't that case end with M$ being vindicated, and Apple running away with its tail between its legs?

There was more then one lawsuit. So, did Apple lose round one (the copyright related lawsuit)? Yes. It is worth noting that was decided by a Judge after Jobs left the company. If Jobs had been running things, I think he would have settled the suit. It is also worth noting that although Apple lost the lawsuit, valuable case law was created concerning various "look and feel" arguments that Apple is using today. The judge in that case agreed Apple had a copyright in the look and feel of its OS, but decided Apple gave Microsoft a license to use the OS.

Did it lose the second round (the patents related lawsuits)? No, Apple gained a hundred million dollar investment from Microsoft, a five year commitment to develop Office for the Mac, the right to use Microsoft patents, which allowed for Apple to incorporate Exchange Server into Mail as well as other technology, an undisclosed amount in settlement dollars, and most importantly valuable time. Further, it sent a message that Microsoft was committed to the Mac. That was one of Jobs best negotiated deals. Apple wouldn't be where it was today without it.

Didn't that case end with M$ being vindicated, and Apple running away with its tail between its legs?

I think that may be the point though - that case, in the end, hinged on the court's decision that Apple had licensed the individual design elements to Microsoft previously, and that they could not claim that the overall look and feel was more than the sum of the parts. Apple probably learned a valuable lesson there.

By "special", are you referring to retaining the right to challenge the patent validity?

That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.

Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.

That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.

Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.

Motorola, like Nokia, doesn't disclose the contracts of other licensees. So, Apple has to make an offer based on essentially what it thinks is fair and non discriminatory, not on what is actually the case. Moreover, it is also known some members of the FRAND licensing body don't pay any royalties at all. For instance, Samsung is using Motorola's patents, but Motorola's isn't getting a royalty.

Finally, some contractual terms are on their face invalid. For example, if I loaned you fifty dollars, I couldn't put in the contract that I'd have the right to burn your house down if you didn't pay. I could still put that in the contract, but it wouldn't be enforceable. Why would any company relinquish it's right to establish the patent it is paying royalties on is valid?

That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.

Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.

I can see how that can be argued as modifying the contract terms. The German view of the limitations of the FRAND defense seems quite restrictive. They appear to be trying to avoid the situation in which there is no downside to witholding licensing payments at a FRAND rate because you can pay them later if you don't manage to get the patents in question invalidated. However, if you pay them up front and then do get the patents invalidated, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to recover the licensing fees - that presumably is what Apple wants to avoid since they are challenging those patents in a separate action.

Unfortunately, that course of action does effectively give them a potentially more favorable situation than other companies which licensed - the special treatment that others have commented on above.

Intellectual property doesn't really exist? Since when? Intellectual property most certainly does exist and can be bought and sold like other property. Try coming back when you learn something about intellectual property.

You're scenerios don't exist. They aren't examples that meaningless blanket statements. You'r ignoring my points by altering the context of my point which clearly indicate the opposite of what you suggest with my comments about owning a domain.

Quote:

It's an inflammatory, meaningless term and implies that they did something wrong.

If it's without meaning then how can be inflammatory? Again, as I've stated I see nothing wrong with Apple, Nokia, Samsung, MS, Sony et al. waiting under their patent bridge for someone to cross.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I can see how that can be argued as modifying the contract terms. The German view of the limitations of the FRAND defense seems quite restrictive. They appear to be trying to avoid the situation in which there is no downside to witholding licensing payments at a FRAND rate because you can pay them later if you don't manage to get the patents in question invalidated. However, if you pay them up front and then do get the patents invalidated, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to recover the licensing fees - that presumably is what Apple wants to avoid since they are challenging those patents in a separate action.

Unfortunately, that course of action does effectively give them a potentially more favorable situation than other companies which licensed - the special treatment that others have commented on above.

That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid. If Apple agrees to pay the license, does pay the license, and then later the patent is found invalid, Apple wasn't receiving special treatment. Moreover, it isn't Apple's fault if other licensees don't want to challenge the patent. It is absurd to predicate the acceptance of a license payment for a standard based patent on a company not seeking to verify the patent's validity.

Again, what holds true in Germany doesn't hold true else place. Take the US. The judge in Apple's case against Samsung essentially said Samsung is likely infringing a non essential Apple patent, but an injunction wasn't necessary. In Germany, Samsung would be out of luck.

I personally think Apple is sacrificing a pawn. It probably flooded the German market with product, so it will have enough to sell for months (the injunction only effects imports). It is then hoping the European Union's investigation into the matter plays out favorably for it or it hopes its contemporaneous case against Motorola in another Court goes its way. Handing out injunctions is a two way street. Motorola just got lucky and filed in a faster Court.

As regards to Samsung and HTC, you seem to assume cloning is bad and your _american_ way of thinking is the only acceptable one. I expect you'll then propose to nuke Iran, aggress Irak (ah, already done), invade Afghanistan (ah, already done), steal oil from poor countries (ah, already done), bully countries into voting your way or remove american participation into population-support programs necessary due to american behavior (ah, already done, ask Yemen or even UNESCO their opinion about that), double american-made world air pollution when everyone else is diminishing theirs (ah, already done)...

My point is, asian cultures consider copying good ideas a legitimate method to advance technology and culture. The fact america considers it a bad thing doesn't make it the only way to think.
Open your mind to that fact: others may think differently.

Think different.

And don't get me wrong: America has lots of great things, however self-righteousness is not one of them.

How about stop wasting money, lay off workers and cut university courses because there is no guarantee on a return on your investment in R&D if it can just be stolen and copied.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

They own quite a few in truth. Well in access of 2000, not including anything from Moto (their 17K still pending))

Most of those have been recently acquired to try and defend Android. Google owns very few search related patents. That is odd, since that is it's bread and butter. You can't count the Motorola patents, as Google doesn't own them yet.

That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid.

Where do you get that from?.

Even in the US the determination of "non-discriminatory" in a RAND (or FRAND) agreement applies to both the terms and the rates. Each licensee is required to be treated equally. If the contract requires them to acknowledge the patents as valid, either specifically or by inference, and Apple wants a "special" contract term that allows the validity to be challenged and money to be refunded then they are not being treated equally. The basic licensing agreement conditions must be the same no matter who the license is being granted to. Without the same basic terms and rates then the RAND obligations meant to ensure a level playing field wouldn't be met. Correct?

If you have some source proving that only the rates are considered and not specific terms, please post them. I willing to admit I've misstated the facts if you can show it.

Most of those have been recently acquired to try and defend Android. Google owns very few search related patents. That is odd, since that is it's bread and butter. You can't count the Motorola patents, as Google doesn't own them yet.

Various mentions here and there over the years have shown a laxness on Google's part concerning patents. They just didn't make them a priority. I think that attitude has now changed.

That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.

Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.

Motorola terminates the license agreements of chipmakers, specifically based on them selling the chips to Apple.

Are Apple getting a discount on these chips equivalent to the parts of the FRAND licensing fees paid on them attributable to Motorola?

How does this work are Motorola giving a rebate to Qualcomm and others?

This is highly discriminatory, anticompetitive and against the spirit of standards based patents.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Apple itself seems to be its greatest enemy these days. Then again, I'll repeat myself: Steve Jobs admired the old HP. Great companies fall from grace and it sometimes is very fast. Let's hope Apple doesn't go this way too soon.

Yes, Apple are huge enemies with themselves. Everytime Cook looks at their current account and see $80bn, he must think "dayam, we're enemies of ourselves".

HP are a very good example of why Apple needs to protect itself. HP makes average computers, for next to no money because they have no Unique Selling Point. They jumped on the PC bandwagon and there is nothing USP that they can add - apart from maybe a piano finish to this years laptops.

There is nothing that HP builds that I can't buy somewhere else which is just as good, whether it's a printer, server, PC, laptop, tablet (lol), nothing.

My point is, asian cultures consider copying good ideas a legitimate method to advance technology and culture. The fact america considers it a bad thing doesn't make it the only way to think.

Asian culture is going no where fast anytime soon. If copying good ideas are a legitimate method to advance anything, then Asia wouldn't be in the 19th century right now. The West did it's industrial revolution 200 years ago, whilst Asia (bar Japan) has only really just got started.

Asia does the jobs that the west doesn't want right now, and the only reason things are built in China is because an American/European worker wants $8ph+benefits.

Seriously, Asia, whether it's China, Indochina, Indian Subcontinent, is so far behind it's unreal. If it's methodology to copy everything is so good - why is it so far behind?

Asia (China especially) had a good fireworks show 1,000 years ago and promptly gave up.

That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid. If Apple agrees to pay the license, does pay the license, and then later the patent is found invalid, Apple wasn't receiving special treatment. Moreover, it isn't Apple's fault if other licensees don't want to challenge the patent. It is absurd to predicate the acceptance of a license payment for a standard based patent on a company not seeking to verify the patent's validity.

Again, what holds true in Germany doesn't hold true else place. Take the US. The judge in Apple's case against Samsung essentially said Samsung is likely infringing a non essential Apple patent, but an injunction wasn't necessary. In Germany, Samsung would be out of luck.

I personally think Apple is sacrificing a pawn. It probably flooded the German market with product, so it will have enough to sell for months (the injunction only effects imports). It is then hoping the European Union's investigation into the matter plays out favorably for it or it hopes its contemporaneous case against Motorola in another Court goes its way. Handing out injunctions is a two way street. Motorola just got lucky and filed in a faster Court.

Have I understood this correctly:

Apple offered to pay FRAND rates, but reserved the right to challenge (presumably a challenge would be invalidated if they paid without reserving that right?), at which point Motorola declined to accept FRAND rates. Apple used the technology anyway, on the basis that they had offered and would pay whenever the offer was accepted.

Now Motorola wants non-FRAND rates for the period of use to date and the German court has agreed that they can demand more than FRAND because they believe that Apple lost the right to FRAND when they declared their intention to challenge the patents.

If that is correct, then part of the problem seems to be that there is no standard definition of a FRAND agreement, so individual courts, anywhere, are free to interpret it how they see fit and according to local precedent, if such exists. I could argue this either way. It is clearly a technical loss for Apple. Maybe Motorola are using it as leverage to get Apple to withdraw their patent challenge, at which point they might accept FRAND rates retrospectively. In this jurisdiction, it looks as if Apple need to decide if they want to gamble on saving paying FRAND rates with a potential for a rather larger bill if they lose.